Ok true so I'll rephrase it. So by that same token if A Godzilla Movie has a Giant Iguana with hind legs its still a respectable Godzilla film?

What do you consider a "respectable" Godzilla movie? Godzilla of the 50's, very serious, no humor, unsympathetic killing machine, an allegory of the terrors of nuclear radiation....or Godzilla of the 60's, the misunderstood, sympathetic, sometimes humorous, lumbering beheamoth who actually saves humans from other giant critters....or the retconned Godzilla of the later decades, where they threw all but the original movie out of the continuity and made him again an unhumorous (but now slightly sympathetic creature) mindlessly destroying things? The original Japanese creators made several "versions" of Godzilla....the American movie was simply another "version".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

Ane even you have to admit the the 98 Godzilla was the worst that any worst that came before it or after it

No....I don't think it was the worst version I have ever seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

So all references to whether XM-FC is a respectable CBM with respect to genre of source/Comicbooks in general

edit: I'll help you. XM-FC is to comicbook movies as Godzilla in 1998 are to Godzilla movies. It's based in the character(s) of the same name but bare none or little resemblance to its original intent, source and/or vibe for it's own creative reasons

If this is the case with XM-FC, are you also saying The Dark Knight Trilogy and The Amazing Spider-man are not comic book movies?

What do you consider a "respectable" Godzilla movie? Godzilla of the 50's, very serious, no humor, unsympathetic killing machine, an allegory of the terrors of nuclear radiation....or Godzilla of the 60's, the misunderstood, sympathetic, sometimes humorous, lumbering beheamoth who actually saves humans from other giant critters....or the retconned Godzilla of the later decades, where they threw all but the original movie out of the continuity and made him again an unhumorous (but now slightly sympathetic creature) mindlessly destroying things? The original Japanese creators made several "versions" of Godzilla....the American movie was simply another "version".

No....I don't think it was the worst version I have ever seen.

Well then that ends that. I thought out of all the the G-Films IMO the 98 version was the worst..

Quote:

Don't understand what you are wanting to say there.

But I consider XM-FC one of the best comic book movies out there.

What I (and others) mean by a CBM is that it has the feel of a Comicbook. The MCU film did that perfectly. XM-FC as good as it was didn't feel like a CBM. That feel is what may make the difference between a Billion BO take and a Lower millions BO take. People buy comic books for the ride and the Avengers translated that to film and even the GA got on..

So I'll correct myself that XM-FC didn't vibe like a CBM though technically it may be.

Well then that ends that. I thought out of all the the G-Films IMO the 98 version was the worst..

No problem. I don't expect everyone to like or dislike the same things I do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

What I (and others) mean by a CBM is that it has the feel of a Comicbook. The MCU film did that perfectly. XM-FC as good as it was didn't feel like a CBM. That feel is what may make the difference between a Billion BO take and a Lower millions BO take. People buy comic books for the ride and the Avengers translated that to film and even the GA go on..

So I'll correct myself that XM-FC didn't vibe like a CBM though technically it may be.

That of course brings up....what do you consider a "comic book"? The Oscar winning Tom Hanks movie THE ROAD TO PERDITION was made from a graphic novel. Some will say - well, there's the difference, it was a GRAPHIC NOVEL....while others if presented with the graphic novel will say - hey look, a comic book.

No problem. I don't expect everyone to like or dislike the same things I do.

That of course brings up....what do you consider a "comic book"? The Oscar winning Tom Hanks movie THE ROAD TO PERDITION was made from a graphic novel. Some will say - well, there's the difference, it was a GRAPHIC NOVEL....while others if presented with the graphic novel will say - hey look, a comic book.

Because they are different in tone. Tone makes the difference between a GN and a CB. That IMO is just ignorance about the genre as a whole, though I do understand their confusion in that you can buy a GN in a CB store..

I'd somwhat agree for Nolans DK trilogy does not have the feel of a CBM but I'd exclude Spider-man cause 1 and 2 (and as bad as it was even 3) felt like CBMs.

I brought up Godzilla because if you did a search on public opinion on whether they considered the 98 vers and Godzilla film they say otherwise though technically it is a Godzilla film.

Just cause it holds the name doesn't mean the Public Opinion will feel that it should have ever existed and respect the title

For example. Hallie Berry rendition of Cat-Woman

Let me make it clear that I'm NOT trashing XM-FC as a good movie. It just didn't feel like a CBM and thats just fine but I'm just pointing out Movies that had that feel performed better in the BO

Oh I wasn't judging you for trashing. I was trying to get a better understanding of what you meant, since TDK trilogy and Amazing Spider-man 2012 had new material that wasn't addressed in the comics; that it wasn't considered a CBM. But now that you meant as comic book feel to it. I guess I see where you're coming from.

Oh I wasn't judging you for trashing. I was trying to get a better understanding of what you meant, since TDK trilogy and Amazing Spider-man 2012 had new material that wasn't addressed in the comics; that it wasn't considered a CBM. But now that you meant as comic book feel to it. I guess I see where you're coming from.

And I admit, reading back, where I went wrong in the clarity of my point being I was heating up for the debate with the usual suspects LOL!!!

Because they are different in tone. Tone makes the difference between a GN and a CB. That IMO is just ignorance about the genre as a whole, though I do understand their confusion in that you can buy a GN in a CB store..

So to you...tone makes the difference between a comic book movie and a movie based upon a comic book character?

Adam West's BATMAN and Bale's TDKR are both based on the comic book character BATMAN. The first is campy humor...the latter is as serious as serious can be. To me....they are both comic book movies. I see them as different variations of a common beginning. I have no problem with liking and appreciating a comic book movie. I have a feeling that many want to call them something else to remove the stigma of "comic book" from them. I embrace it.

An analogy - I became a STAR TREK fan in the 60's from the beginning. The people who became TREK fans started calling themselves Trekkies. As time went by....the non TREK fans started using the term Trekkies as an insult. So the serious TREK fans started calling themselves Trekkers. It separated them from the perceived onus of being something bad. When I was asked if I was a "Trekkie" or a "Trekker"....I answered "Yes." They would look confused and say "You have to make a choice." And I would tell them "I have. I choose to be a STAR TREK fan. And no matter what you call me, I will always be a proud STAR TREK fan."

I feel that some people are afraid that they will be called a comic book fan. I have no problem with being called that.

And just to clarify....I said that I feel that this is the case with some people...that does not mean I am saying it is the case for you or anybody in particular.

So to you...tone makes the difference between a comic book movie and a movie based upon a comic book character?

Adam West's BATMAN and Bale's TDKR are both based on the comic book character BATMAN. The first is campy humor...the latter is as serious as serious can be. To me....they are both comic book movies. I see them as different variations of a common beginning. I have no problem with liking and appreciating a comic book movie. I have a feeling that many want to call them something else to remove the stigma of "comic book" from them. I embrace it.

Well if you look in respect to the time periods of those movies (60's and 90"s burton BM) I'd consider them CBM because they reflect the CB's of that time. Nolan did his own thing. It was a good thing but it was his OWN thing and didn't feel like a CBM to me but were great movies.

Quote:

An analogy - I became a STAR TREK fan in the 60's from the beginning. The people who became TREK fans started calling themselves Trekkies. As time went by....the non TREK fans started using the term Trekkies as an insult. So the serious TREK fans started calling themselves Trekkers. It separated them from the perceived onus of being something bad. When I was asked if I was a "Trekkie" or a "Trekker"....I answered "Yes." They would look confused and say "You have to make a choice." And I would tell them "I have. I choose to be a STAR TREK fan. And no matter what you call me, I will always be a proud STAR TREK fan."

I feel that some people are afraid that they will be called a comic book fan. I have no problem with being called that.

And just to clarify....I said that I feel that this is the case with some people...that does not mean I am saying it is the case for you or anybody in particular.

I like that analogy!! I agree. I'm a comic book fan and people respect me as such. I think the fandom image has shifted to the positive being that they're gaining in numbers due to the recent success of the genre as a whole IMO.

Look I hope the Next Batman movie franchise is more along the likes of the BMTAS but that is in a different forum...

I digress, Mark Millar ticks me off but he's gotta do what he's hired to do and Fox are who they are. Its the politics of MARVEL and we all choose our sides as fans.. As unfortunate as that fact is

Great Millar, now put your money where your mouth is and try making a Marvel flick that has a little bit more depth than your average popcorn flick. Your new employer seems to have had a bit of trouble doing that...

Indeed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

Missed the point as usual.. Somebody help him with this

edit: I'll help you. XM-FC is to comicbook movies as Godzilla in 1998 are to Godzilla movies. It's based in the character(s) of the same name but bare none or little resemblance to its original intent, source and/or vibe for it's own creative reasons

That Godzilla fill is a sore spot for me as well. It was more like "Ferris Bueler Meets Gozilla"

Quote:

Originally Posted by R_Hythlodeus

Okay we will try it again with an over the top example, maybe you will understand this then.
Imagine someone tries to adapt LOTR, but instead of being close to the books, they just keep Aragorn and Gandalf, maybe Gimli too. The story is set in New York in the 1990ies and the plot involves a bank heist.
Is this a LOTR movie or just a movie with LOTR characters in it? Is First Class a Comic Book Movie or just a misogynist pile of crap despite Fassbenders great acting movie with comicbook characters in it?

You 3 guys are sooo on my Xmas card list! LOL!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

You just illustrated our points in a nutshell. Thats all fine and good. They can make what they want to make but the fact remains.. Not comicbook movies. So we agree now..

Heck I'll take Thor (449 mil) over FC. Yep (If were just condensing it to 2011)!!! In other words no matter what Fox/Marvel has put out it all been underwhelming (outside of XM-FC*) story wise and BO performance wise..

Your man Mark Millar can underhandely insult Marvel/Disney all he wants because he's backing a company that to the main people/fanbase he's trying to hype to Fox/Marvel is giving him backlash cause they want Marvel to have all their characters back (even more after the success of the Avengers). Marvel wins regardless

edit: I swear. This marvel characters rights things remind me of congress on the fiscal cliff issue and any other issue.. Nobody wants to budge for no good reason

The problem here is that The Wolverine wont likely be anything to write home about but will still be better than the first one. (which really shouldn't be hard to accomplish)

It'll just barely make it's money back in the states and might turn a decent profit over seas. Which to FOX fans will still be deemed a huge success and be praised as the next Dark Knight scale franchise thus encouraging FOX to continue churning out half decent "Marvel films".

FOX's main competition will come the following week end with 300pt2 and RED2, which if either are good will put a huge dent into The Wolverine, which I doubt will do more than $40-55mill it's first weekend anyway.

It's safe to say that Marvel/Disney told FOX to go fly a kite regarding the shared universe proposal. So as a MCU supporter I have a lot ridding on Ironman 3 as a result.

Meaning if it's well received by critics and does even half the box office number that Avengers did previously, the growing notion that Marvel/Disney should own all their comicbook characters will significantly increase.

Millar and company knows this! Which is why the snub by Millar about 2013 films was so clear in his article.

This movie sends a very problematic message to women all over the world. There was not ONE female character that wasn't completely objectified in a very sexist way at some point of the movie. This is the 21st century, one would expect we are beyond that stage. Obviously Matthew Vaughn isn't.
Oh and all those X-kids were terrible actors, but this is just a minor nitpick.
This movie is far from anything I would consider good.

This movie sends a very problematic message to women all over the world. There was not ONE female character that wasn't completely objectified in a very sexist way at some point of the movie. This is the 21st century, one would expect we are beyond that stage. Obviously Matthew Vaughn isn't.
Oh and all those X-kids were terrible actors, but this is just a minor nitpick.
This movie is far from anything I would consider good.

I can already tell you that most will just say "well it was based in the 70's" as if the poor portrayal of women was necessary to make this film.

The fact is that the women in that film were mediocre at best. And looking at what they've done with poor Viper so far in that Wolverine film it doesn't look like they'll be changing things for Marvel females any time soon.

This movie sends a very problematic message to women all over the world. There was not ONE female character that wasn't completely objectified in a very sexist way at some point of the movie. This is the 21st century, one would expect we are beyond that stage. Obviously Matthew Vaughn isn't.
Oh and all those X-kids were terrible actors, but this is just a minor nitpick.
This movie is far from anything I would consider good.

To me...it was showing what the early 60s were like....a sorta MADXMEN.

Christopher Nolan had a great vision and talent and his Dark Knight films were great.

But Mark Millar shouldn't forget that we're talking about films based on Comic Books. We're not talking about Dostoevsky here.

When I collected up my allowance and headed to the newstand every Tuesday to see what was new, I wasn't looking for brooding contemplations of the human condition. I was looking for fun adventure and escapism.

To me...it was showing what the early 60s were like....a sorta MADXMEN.

While I could accept that for Emma Frost and the way the CIA treated Moira, that certainly isn't true for (and this is just one example for many) Moira stripping down to her underwear for no reason other than the scriptwriters and Vaughn found no other way to get her half naked

edit: And if it really was their intention to channel every aspect of the 60ies then there is no excuse for that godawful x-kids behaving and talking like teenagers from the 2000s

Millar has a mouth on him, out of which nothing relevant has ever flowed. Guys like him just bug me.

__________________
If the person you're seeing ever asks the question "Who is Stan Lee?", promptly kick their ass to the curb.
-----------
Who the **** makes a movie and while planning it is like, "you know what this needs...is some Greg Kinnear."

While I could accept that for Emma Frost and the way the CIA treated Moira, that certainly isn't true for (and this is just one example for many) Moira stripping down to her underwear for no reason other than the scriptwriters and Vaughn found no other way to get her half naked

edit: And if it really was their intention to channel every aspect of the 60ies then there is no excuse for that godawful x-kids behaving and talking like teenagers from the 2000s

I didn't say it was their intention to channel every aspect of the 60's....just that the way that the world reacted to women at that time was pretty accurately portrayed. I didn't say it was perfect....just that I very much enjoyed it and prefer it to some other comic related movies that others are always putting up against it.

dr tactics your problem is you only see comic books as one way as light hearted,fun,big action spectacles and to be honest that is very close minded if a comic book movie can only have one tone and way it can be presented frankly this genre would be dead and boring right about now if that were the case

dr tactics your problem is you only see comic books as one way as light hearted,fun,big action spectacles and to be honest that is very close minded if a comic book movie can only have one tone and way it can be presented frankly this genre would be dead and boring right about now if that were the case

I think it's better if Comic Book movies would just strive to recreate the tones that exist in its source material. If a comic is dark and gritty make the movie dark and gritty. If a comic is light hearted and upbeat make the movie light hearted and upbeat. There are larger dynamic at play but people just seem to simplify there arguments.

__________________

Quote:

What is the most indestructable thing in the avengers? Ironman's suit, Captain America's Shield, or Thor's Hammer?﻿ The correct answer is Hulk's Pants

dr tactics your problem is you only see comic books as one way as light hearted,fun,big action spectacles and to be honest that is very close minded if a comic book movie can only have one tone and way it can be presented frankly this genre would be dead and boring right about now if that were the case

This would be a legit comment if the team said person was routing for (FOX Marvel) didn't have such a lousy track record (3 out of 9) while doing their own thing.

Nolan's work is really the only exception. He took a chance by doing something different and made a success of it but the key in that was that he did it with a great script and great actors. He also didn't make a habit in b*st*rdizing and shoe horning in random DC characters all for the sake of budgeting or marketing.

And since Marvel/Disney films have been anything but dead and boring I fail to see Dr Tactics having any problem here.